37 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(12/08/10 1:18am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Hero. Villain. Right. Wrong. Or maybe not.The concept of “hero” has long been the antithesis of “villain” and vice versa, and I had always accepted that black and white definition as such.And as Showtime’s “Dexter,” a show about a serial killer of serial killers, nears the end of its fifth season, I began to re-evaluate what those words mean to me.The burden of knowing you took someone else’s life is a responsibility that few people would be willing to take. But doesn’t being a hero revolve around the idea of carrying the weight of others on your shoulders? I remember feeling disgusted with Batman at the end of “The Dark Knight” for letting the Joker slip through his fingers when he had a chance to kill him. I didn’t see it as an act of heroism or humanity; it was an act of cowardice.The Joker was a raging psychopath who was more than happy to take any number of lives, but Batman chose to save his own soul from being marred by murder. Dexter might not wear a cape and tights; the only things he wears are black leather gloves and an awkward smile. Yet, he is essentially the same as any superhero we’ve grown up with. He hunts down “the bad guys” and makes the neighborhood a safer place. The only difference is he enjoys his kills.As unsettling as that is, it doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things. At the end of the day, his actions are the same as a vintage superhero’s, and he, like a traditional superhero, doesn’t target anyone other than murderers and rapists.In February 2008, the Parents Television Council battled the CBS decision to air re-runs of “Dexter.” The Parents Television Council complained, stating “they intend to air material that effectively celebrates murder.” Yet, we live in a country that still performs executions and even provides witness rooms for those who wish to watch.Opponents of the death penalty argue that no person has the right to take away the life of someone else. And while a part of me agrees with that, I have to wonder if throwing a person in prison and stripping them of their freedom is all that different from physically taking their life. Still, I hesitate to say that I support capital punishment, mostly because our justice system isn’t perfect, and there is always a chance that the convicted are innocent. But it is because our justice system isn’t perfect and is often deeply riddled by politics that I feel more empathetic to the idea of a vigilante. After the highly publicized case of O.J. Simpson and now the hastily fabricated rape case against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, it’s clear that justice isn’t always served.This isn’t to say that our justice system should be overridden and bloodthirsty killers should run the streets, but it is important to recognize that our longstanding notions of hero and villain, right and wrong, might be more similar than we care to acknowledge. E-mail: pkansal@indiana.edu
(12/02/10 11:51pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Oscar fanatics, say hello to your new hosts.Anne Hathaway, lead of the newly released film “Love & Other Drugs,” and James Franco, who can be seen in the new movie “127 Hours,” were recently chosen to host the 2011 Oscars.This is a sharp departure from the Academy’s usual penchant for salt-and-pepper-haired hosts, most likely because choosing hot, wrinkle-free actors is the most effective way to reach the goal of garnering a younger audience.Although the Oscars have been around for more than 80 years, it has never seemed very interested in including the younger generations in either nominations or performances before, so why now?Because for the first time, actors younger than 30 will likely sweep this year’s Oscars, and this year’s ratings.Jennifer Lawrence, star of “Winter’s Bone,” is likely to earn a nod for “Best Actress,” and possibly win, although Natalie Portman is strongly favored for “Black Swan.” Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling’s edgy romance “Blue Valentine” will most likely win at least one category — the list goes on.It only makes sense to continue with the theme of the night by appointing young hosts to represent most of the year’s talent. Independent films have become increasingly popular, with some of them inching their way into mainstream Hollywood. This year’s independent films featured more young, up-and-coming actors than usual.Young actors aren’t necessarily more talented than older actors, but they do have lower expectations when it comes to paychecks, which allows them to pick quality projects instead of big-budget blockbusters.Actresses like Reese Witherspoon, Cameron Diaz and Jennifer Aniston, who have been around for years, topped Forbes’ list of “Hollywood’s Highest-Paid Actresses” for 2010, so it’s not likely that they would be willing to trim their multi-million dollar salaries after getting accustomed to such posh lifestyles. So they continue to make sub-par romantic comedies in exchange for hefty fees.However, there are always exceptions to that trend, two of them being Annette Bening and Julianne Moore, who starred in the independent family dramedy “The Kids Are All Right.”While it’s satisfying to see young actors finally acknowledged for their work, it seems as though, for the past couple of years, the Academy has been embracing the youth of Hollywood a little too tightly. I was slightly peeved to see Disney’s proteges (Zac Efron, Vanessa Hudgens, Miley Cyrus, etc.) presenting and performing at the 2010 Oscars. I don’t feel that any of them have paid their dues yet, and I think the Academy would agree. But unfortunately, the hunger for ratings trumps merit.The Academy’s new approach proved effective, as the Oscar audience increased by 14 percent from 2009 to 2010.Overall, it’s gratifying to finally see the Oscars get a little nip/tuck, but only because there is plenty of talent to back it up. Inviting Miley Cyrus and the rest of the Disney teenyboppers is more like a face-lift, and we know that those almost never end well. E-mail: pkansal@indiana.edu
(11/18/10 11:37pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>During the past couple of weeks, Amazon customers were up in arms about a self-published e-book called “The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child Lover’s Code of Conduct” and demanded that it be removed from the website. The book was finally removed from www.amazon.com last Wednesday, but not before several days of controversy. After thousands of customers left disgusted comments on the website, cancelled their orders and even closed their accounts, Amazon released a statement, claiming that it “does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions.” But isn’t reaping the financial benefits of a product essentially supporting it and its message? In a December 2009 interview with the New York Times, Amazon CEO Jeffrey P. Bezos revealed that Amazon keeps 65 percent of the revenue from every e-book — including self-published ones, like “The Pedophile’s Guide.” As of June 2010, Amazon started a program through which it keeps 30 percent if the author agrees to certain conditions. Either way, Amazon is profiting from these sales and, therefore, has some accountability. Censorship certainly contradicts First Amendment rights and goes against some of America’s most popular values, but there is a fine line between censorship and refusing to promote serious crimes. When O.J. Simpson released his book “If I Did It,” which detailed how he would have killed his ex-wife and her friend if he had done it, most book vendors found a balance between censorship and sensitivity. Borders Inc. and Walden Book Co. Inc. said all net proceeds would be given to victims of domestic violence. In addition, Borders Inc. spokeswoman Ann Binkley said they “would not discount the title or promote it.”In addition, a variety of independent bookstores on the east coast said they would order the book for customers who wished to purchase it, but the book would not be stocked in-store. Other independent vendors said they would purchase only a few copies of the book and display it in an inconspicuous part of the store. In the case of “If I Did It,” most corporate and independent booksellers chose morals instead of money. Although the concept of “If I Did It” is appalling, it’s not quite as heinous as “The Pedophile’s Guide.” Unlike “If I Did It,” which describes an event that (most likely) already happened to two people, “The Pedophile’s Guide” is explicitly giving tips on how to sexually assault an indefinite number of minors in the present and the future.Yet, Amazon is still more concerned about censorship. It would be interesting to see whether Amazon would be singing this same tune if someone published a book about how someone could one-up the terrorists of 9/11 and make an even bigger statement. Both “The Pedophile’s Guide” and this hypothetical book are giving tips on how to commit highly illegal acts that harm numerous people. I have a strong suspicion that Amazon would remove the content immediately and prostrate itself in front of the families of 9/11 victims. The argument of refusing to censor is only legitimate when discussing subjects such as adult pornography, MPAA ratings, prostitution (not including human trafficking), etc. Those topics involve mutual consent.“The Pedophile’s Guide,” on the other hand, was described by the author as his “attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certain [sic] rules for these adults to follow.” He also admitted, “certain parts are advisory.” It clearly does not agree with the idea of mutual consent. If “The Pedophile’s Guide” explored the history or psychology behind pedophilia, or even defended pedophilia, Amazon’s choice to sell it would legitimately support the idea of freedom of expression. But the book guides amateur pedophiles to violate minors and explicitly encourages sexual abuse. So in this case, Amazon can’t hide behind the veil of free speech. Because by selling, promoting and benefiting from this material, Amazon might believe it is protecting the First Amendment rights of the author, but that is inconsequential compared to violating the human rights of countless others. E-mail: pkansal@indiana.edu
(11/10/10 10:15pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Once again, political agendas take reign in the realm of human rights.Last week, Secretary of Statew Hillary Rodhq,Clinton visited Phnom Penh, Cambodia’s capital, where she saw the Tuol Sleng prison, which was a holding cell for more than 14,000 people who were subsequently killed. After touring the site and seeing photographs from the Cambodian Genocide, which exterminated 1.7 million individuals, Clinton launched a pro-democracy, pro-atonement rhetoric. While the point is well taken, it doesn’t seem genuine. Just eight months ago, Clinton strongly lobbied against the House’s resolution to label the Armenian Genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Turks during World War I as such. Clinton originally encouraged the formation of a commission that would investigate the happenings of the Armenian Genocide but backtracked after realizing the political ramifications of holding Turkey responsible. Statistics-wise, both events have similar body counts: The Ottoman Turks murdered approximately 1.5 million Armenians, and the Khmer Rouge regime killed 1.7 million Cambodians. So why is there such a difference in accountability? According to the UN, Cambodia is the fourth least-developed country in Asia, so in terms of trade, the U.S. has little to gain and lose from it. Therefore, condemning its crimes does not come with consequences. If anything, the U.S. scores brownie points in the eyes of its fellow UN nations for being a proponent of human rights, rather than living up to its reputation as a war-waging superpower. On the other hand, much of the U.S.’s foreign policy initiatives are becoming increasingly dependent on Turkey. At the United Nations General Assembly in September, Turkey declared its intentions to be prominent global power and head of predominantly Muslim countries. Turkey boasted having a healthy economy and a prime geographic location that links Asia with Europe. The U.S. knows it is in a precarious position: If it pushes Turkey’s buttons enough, Iran will become Turkey’s primary ally, causing the U.S. to lose whatever influence it has over its nuclear program. And although Incirlik Air Base is no longer integral to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, the U.S. has been storing B-61 thermonuclear gravity bombs in Turkey, as well as four other NATO countries since the Cold War. When the House was debating whether to pass the resolution on the Armenian Genocide last year, many who opposed it argued that it was not a government’s duty to label such events, but rather the historians’. Is it now acceptable that Clinton is condemning Cambodia’s actions or is that overstepping her job description?I would argue that it is the duty of everyone — including government officials — to further human rights both in the past and present. What is unacceptable is to cherry pick when you are discussing justice after genocide, especially when the numbers you are talking about are in the millions.Perhaps it is unrealistic to expect such consistency from politicians, but it shouldn’t be. If governments agree that it is their role to investigate and vote international genocide or alleged genocide, it is a step forward in the area of human rights, but consistency is a must in order for any of their resolutions to make an impact in history. E-mail: pkansal@indana.edu
(10/27/10 12:04am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I spent Saturday helping out a local garden/pumpkin patch’s Halloween-inspired activities for kids in the community. Other than getting to interact with some cute kids, I didn’t expect this experience to be all that memorable. But as two of my friends and I were standing on a hill trying to decide which activity to help with next, a 60-something-year-old man with a camera around his neck sauntered over and began talking to us. “Now, you must be South Asian students, am I right?” he said. “I don’t want to confuse you with the Native American Indians.”I have to pause the story at this point to rant about his heinous, politically incorrect statement. Native Americans are not Indians. Except for the fact that we’re all Homo sapiens, we are in no way related. Christopher Columbus pigheadedly refused to believe that his discovery was America, not India, but that doesn’t justify perpetuating such stupidity more than 500 years later.It is not acceptable to label a Mexican as Spanish, a Korean as Chinese, a German as Dutch, etc., and this should be no different. Back to the story: He started yakking about how he traveled to India more than 20 years ago on dirt-cheap airfare rates, and we amiably asked him questions about his trip. He then asked us where we’re from, and we responded by saying, “Well, my parents are from [the city in which each of our parents grew up].”His response? “Well, I hope you enjoy your stay here in America!”A thick silence settled over us. My friends and I shifted uncomfortably and stared at each other in shock for a good 30 seconds. “How the hell does this guy think we’re international students?” we vented to each other using just our eyes. “Is he such a decrepit old man that he can’t hear our American accents?”We silently agreed to let him think what he wanted and refrain from correcting him. But, being the colossal idiot that he was, he kept beaming and gazing into the sun. “So, what are you studying in school?” he asked. “Business.”“Journalism.”“Biology.”“Ah, biology, I see,” he said knowingly, stroking his chin. “Now, biology is very broad, so what kind are you studying?”“Oh, I’m pre-med,” my friend responded. “Oh, okay. So, now, do you want to go to medical school here in the States?” he asked. The straw that broke the camel’s back. “Actually, we were born and raised here,” my friend informed him in a tone much more polite than I would have been able to muster. His dopey smile that infuriated me even more. “Yeah, I was going to compliment you on your English,” he said. So he had noticed our American accents. That meant he wasn’t hard of hearing; he was just a massive ignoramus. Although, the worn-out hearing was never a plausible excuse in the first place since he comprehended everything we were saying, therefore, subconsciously noting our origin of accent. The fact that he heard our American accents, saw our completely Westernized clothing and still believed we were international students demonstrated the ignorant assumption that if you’re not white, you’re not really an American. Minority individuals will always be known as immigrants or children of immigrants.Yet, people forget America was founded through immigration and that no one, other than Native Americans, is truly a native (and even they originally came from Asia). This man’s sense of entitlement to America because of his white skin was both offensive and delusional.I wish I could say this was the first time I had encountered such ignorance, but, unfortunately, it’s just the most recent drop in the bucket. It’s moments such as this that make me regret going to school in southern Indiana instead of Chicago. But then I realize that if every minority group had that attitude, awareness would never pervade small towns. Large cities would become more diverse and small towns would continue to live in bubbles. As we were getting ready to leave the volunteering site for the day, I spotted the man animatedly talking to two Asian women. Round two. E-mail: pkansal@indiana.edu
(10/21/10 10:44pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>For some people, Halloween is an opportunity to dress up in a sexy, barely-there costume and take a bunch of suggestive photos. Others opt for the cutesy factor and dress up as a baby, a bumblebee or something else juvenile. But not I.I take Halloween very seriously: Pro-con lists are written, a vote is taken and costumes are assembled, not purchased.Anything slutty or precious is dismissed immediately because Halloween is the one time of the year when you can go to a party without trying to be hot or cute. It’s the one time of the year when you can really get your creative juices flowing and let your clothes speak for themselves. When it comes to clever costumes, there’s nothing I appreciate more than a timely getup. Anything pertaining to 2010s most talked-about news or celebrity scandals is golden. For shy guys who have trouble meeting girls, being Tiger Woods for Halloween is the perfect way to practice your game. Put on khakis, a visor and a polo shirt, and stuff some fishnets and a bra halfway into your pant pockets. Then shamelessly hit on any girl in sight. And if you get slapped across the face, it just makes your costume more legitimate. The not one, not two, but three Toyota recalls are just too good to pass up. The costume is easy enough: Wear a monochromatic outfit and paint the Toyota symbol on your back. At random points during the night, start walking quickly, break into a run and refuse to stop no matter who is in your way. The more people you knock down, the better.Can’t go a night without puffing on a pack of cancer sticks? Not a problem (except for your health). Honor all the air travelers affected by Eyjafjallajokull’s smoldering wrath. Wear all black, tie an offensively bright orange scarf around your neck and blow smoke at every person who passes you. And we can’t forget about the most glorious sporting event known to man: World Cup soccer. First, slip on a soccer jersey and some knee socks. Then, whenever a friend nudges your shoulder to greet you, leap 10 feet in the air and crash to the floor holding your knee. Tears earn bonus points. Warning: If you’re at a bar, you’re getting trampled without a doubt.Finally, the inevitable: Lady Gaga. Don’t even get me started on the national nightmare known as Lady Gaga and her Little Monsters. As much as I’d like to see the Gaga-mania wiped from the earth, I know that’s not going to happen. So if you’re determined to emulate her, don’t stress about finding the perfect costume. Just roll around in a garbage dump and say it’s a statement about society’s wastefulness and consumerism. Or, smear a dirty diaper on your clothes and say it represents Mother Nature and all the cycles in life. You really can’t go wrong with this one.The first Halloween of the new decade should mark a trend in costumes. Go beyond putting on a costume by making it interactive. Don’t just dress the part — be the part. E-mail: pkansal@indiana.edu
(10/13/10 10:21pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>About ten years ago, Chandler Bing, our favorite cynical “Friend” forever altered the way most English-speaking individuals deliver sarcastic one-liners. His trademark emphasis on unexpected syllables changed the way we deal with the English language. Similar to Chandler Bing, Facebook is one of the few and special pop culture phenomena that goes beyond the classification of fad. It has indelibly transformed the makeup of social interactions. Photos are not usually developed and shuffled through anymore; they are uploaded on Facebook, commented on and liked. They are at all of your friends’ fingertips until/if you decide to remove them. The interactive nature of sharing photos on Facebook is now as much of a memory as the one captured in the photo. Invitations, unless for a formal event such as a wedding or a baby shower, have gone from elaborately decorated cards to bare, efficient messages. Friendly e-mails are basically defunct, the more aesthetically pleasing Facebook inbox taking its place. Philanthropic causes, academic projects and current event awareness have all found their niches in Facebook, allowing it to participate in our lives in a greater capacity than simply indulging our hyper-social, narcissistic tendencies. But nothing helps define the powerful beast we call Facebook more than the revelation that Facebook’s greatest foes are three of its over 500 million users. It was only after my roommate excitedly informed me that Divya Narendra and Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, Mark Zuckerberg’s former Harvard classmates who sued him for allegedly stealing their idea of Facebook, have Facebook accounts that I began to digest the magnitude of ‘the social network.’Facebook is so deeply ingrained in our culture that living without it is comparable to living without a cell phone. Some choose to forego it and manage to survive, but those with ulterior motives such as promoting their career or finding a boyfriend or girlfriend know that, like it or not, there’s no greater tool than Facebook. The fact the people who probably hate Zuckerberg the most — the people who probably experience a rush of bitterness every time they log in — are on Facebook speaks volumes about its power over our society. Because even the Winklevosses and Narendra know that, with their business and technology-oriented careers, abstaining from Facebook is similar to choosing to live under a rock. It’s not uncommon for a business’s history or practices to rub people the wrong way, and it’s also not unheard of to boycott such businesses and turn to a substitute. Certain people have long chosen Target over Wal-Mart, Pepsi over Coke, local coffee shops over Starbucks, and so on. But Facebook is one of the few business ventures that managed to squeeze past the moral checkpoint, taking everyone (except those with a serious distaste for social networking) with access to a computer with it. Facebook isn’t a playground for principles — it has, for better or for worse, become a lifestyle, and an overwhelmingly unavoidable one at that.E-mail: pkansal@indiana.edu
(10/07/10 5:39am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>And he’s back.Eliot Spitzer, former governor of New York, recently made his debut on CNN’s Parker Spitzer as a liberal talk show host alongside Kathleen Parker, conservative commentator. It’s not surprising Spitzer jumped at a chance to work for CNN. After he was ousted from his position as NY Governor in 2008, he found a job as an economic columnist at Slate magazine. When the Financial Times asked how he liked his new career, he replied, “It sucks. I used to be governor of New York.” I do believe Spitzer, and anyone else who slips up, deserves a second chance, but I don’t believe it should be on a revered news network. This might be a radical notion to some, but how about our journalists and commentators stick to giving the news, not creating it? Criticizing the words, ideologies and actions of others will only draw more attention to Spitzer’s royal screw-up. At this point, everything he says will be viewed as an example of his bias and indomitable will to enter the public’s good graces again.Since Spitzer has expressed passion and knowledge in the realm of economics through his Slate column and various interviews, it is understandable that he would wish to be in a position of power and change. Attaining a position of change after a slip-up is definitely possible (i.e. Bill Clinton had a much publicized affair with Monica Lewinsky but now runs a widespread foundation and persuaded North Korea to release two American journalists), but Spitzer having real power again is probably wishful thinking. If Spitzer wishes to redeem himself, he should backtrack to where he started — politics. Yes, it’s unlikely that he would get elected to a major office anytime soon, but there are other ways to make change: interest groups, political campaigns, non-profit organizations, etc.And if that does not satiate his thirst for politics, he should simply stick to writing columns. Once you enter the world of television, your fiery vision to change the world will fizzle somewhat. Television is about three things: ratings, ratings, ratings. That being said, I’ll be curious to see whether Spitzer surpasses Glenn Beck on the ‘crazy’ scale by the end of next year. Another issue with trying to reinvent your reputation on television is the fact that TV commentators try to align themselves with middle-class America when it’s uncomfortably obvious that they’re anything but. At the beginning of Parker Spitzer’s premier episode, Spitzer implores President Obama to fire Timothy Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, because “we need more jobs” and “we are suffering.” Really? You’re suffering? Because I’m pretty sure that any non-politician fired from his or her job for being enmeshed in a prostitution scandal would never come anywhere near prime-time television and a half-million dollar salary. But Spitzer is an intelligent man. He probably figures that headlining his own talk show on a prominent network is a clever plan to worm his way back into the hearts of America. He’ll juxtapose his scandalous past with Parker’s perfectly manicured blonde hair, crack a few jokes, show heartfelt concern for a few personal accounts of tragedy, and boom, he will bask in glory once again. He might not be governor of New York anymore, but he’s still playing the game of politics.
(09/29/10 11:00pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Start drawing some “Welcome” signs because 2035 might just be the year aliens visit planet Earth. Seth Shostak, senior astronomer at the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute (SETI), said he believes humans will discover aliens within 25 years. He cites the Drake Equation, a formula that tries to determine the number of alien societies capable of contacting Earth, as evidence. If Shostak’s prediction comes true, it would be prudent for the United Nations to create a position responsible for communicating with extraterrestrial life. And interestingly enough, the UN recently assigned Malaysian astrophysicist Mazlan Othman with a somewhat similar task.There has been a flurry of speculation surrounding the UN’s decision to assign Othman the responsibility of handling “near-Earth objects.” The London Telegraph first sensationalized the appointment by announcing that Othman is set to be tasked with coordinating humanity’s response if and when extraterrestrials make contact.”Othman responded to the claim, saying that, “It sounds cool, but I have to deny it.” It’s possible that the UN did, in fact, create a position responsible for acting as the liaison between aliens and humans, but even if that were the case, the nature of the job would be highly classified. But even though we seem to have taken the necessary steps to prepare for such contact, it might be narcissistic to assume we are around the same technological level as other intelligent life.Michio Kaku, noted theoretical physicist, likens the relationship between humans and aliens to “Goliath and mosquitos.” He reasons that extraterrestrials capable of traveling to Earth and contacting humans are so beyond our scope of technology and intellect that it isn’t logical for them to disturb us. When you compare the archaism of the 19th century to the soaring progress made in the 20th century, the theory that humans are technologically inferior to aliens seems rather plausible. Although the radio was technically invented in 1899, at the cusp of the 19th and 20th centuries, its use skyrocketed during the 20th century. Computers, spacecraft and the Internet were also born in the 20th century, as well, and have all experienced a rapid rate of growth. A century of technology is a narrow window for extraterrestrial contact with Earth, which is estimated to be 4.6 billion years old. Perhaps aliens have attempted to contact Earth, but considering that human civilization has only been technologically advanced for a fraction of its existence thus far, it’s possible that they already messaged us at a time when radios and satellites were incomprehensible to us, received no response, and, therefore, won’t be coming around again any time soon. Despite our immense progress during the past 100 or so years, there are still numerous mysteries of the universe that continue to stump even our best scientists. Dark matter, dark energy and black holes are widely accepted theories but have yet to be supported by concrete evidence. The fact that scientists are aware of these puzzles but lack the means to fathom them demonstrates the existence of greater knowledge and the relative primitiveness of human capability. In addition, you have to question why intelligent life would set its sights on Earth, which is a pint-sized home compared to the other earth-like planets found in the universe. For example, one earth-like planet recently found to be 127 light years from Earth is 1.4 times the Earth’s mass. Another recently discovered quasi-Earth that is 2,000 light years away is estimated to have a mass of three to four times greater than Earth. Kaku reasons there are “lots of pristine planets with plenty of resources,” making it illogical to target a planet already filled with inhabitants. It’s slightly irrational to believe that aliens would pick our humble abode for an apocalyptic takeover when there are more eligible candidates across the universe. Unfortunately for all the UFO hunters, it’s doubtful that aliens have any interest in visiting us whatsoever. But watch what you say about them — they might be listening.E-mail: pkansal@indiana.edu
(09/21/10 11:19pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Would a deck of cards work if all 52 cards were kings and queens? No. So why do we think society is any different?Maybe I have a skewed perspective on this situation because I grew up in an environment in which any profession other than “doctor” or “lawyer” was looked down upon. But it just seems like many of the people I encounter have an uppity, holier-than-thou attitude simply because they are planning to treat the sick or defend the accused, and therefore, anyone working with anything less than a life- or liberty-threatening situation is a waste of oxygen.The reality of it is every job is important. Society couldn’t function solely on doctors and lawyers. The world would be flooded with people who could prescribe you medicine and draw up a contract for you, but who would write your textbooks? Advertise your favorite brand’s newest products?It’s puzzling when I come across people with that mindset, because it takes an education to effectively write books and newspapers, work for an advertising firm or perform any other white-collar job. They might not have the same sense of urgency and ring of heroism as medical or law professions, but they are still integral cogs in the machine of modern society. When it comes to blue-collar jobs, people turn up their noses even more and automatically assume anyone who works a blue-collar job is a redneck who contributes very little to society. Yet, they’re the ones who help our daily lives run smoothly by working in grocery stores, gas stations, coffee shops, etc.I highly doubt people would be willing to walk into McDonald’s and make their own Big Mac or stop by a nail salon and give themselves a pedicure. There is such a strong stigma on being uneducated, yet the uneducated often perform the jobs we believe we are above. Until the day technology becomes so advanced that those grocery stores, gas stations and coffee shops can be run without humans, we need people who are employed there.This applies to the question of illegal immigration as well. I am not a proponent of illegal immigration in any way, but I do respect the fact that illegal immigrants take on the labor-intensive jobs, such as farming, which most Americans are not willing to do.We all rail against the poor quality of education in this country, but would we really be happy if it got better? Or would we complain about how there aren’t enough white-collar jobs anymore? I am not suggesting that proponents of education reform toss their ideals out the window because I strongly feel our education system is need of an extreme makeover. However, I do think upper-middle class America’s general disposition toward the less educated needs to be coupled with the understanding that all levels of education are somewhat necessary for the lifestyle we are all accustomed to. Instead of only being impressed by doctors and lawyers, let’s extend our gratitude to everyone else who plays a part in everything we use in our lives. E-mail: pkansal@indiana.edu
(09/15/10 9:24pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Late one night, as I was browsing the clothes on Forever21.com instead of studying, I spotted a t-shirt that said, “I Heart Tokyo, Paris, NYC, LA.” Uh, what about Chicago? Although I’m technically from northwest Indiana and not Chicago, I root for the Bears, run on Central time, vote blue and spend my weekends exploring the city, so I take offense to this lack of acknowledgment. For some inexplicable reason, Chicago always takes the backseat when it comes to discussing America’s best cities, even though it meets all the requirements of being the perfect big city. Diverse culture? Check. Shopping? Check. Beach? Check.Not unlike New York City, Chicago is bursting at its seams to represent cultures from around the world. Chinatown, Devon Avenue and Greektown are microcosms of China, India and Greece; Boystown is the core of the city’s GLBT culture; and Bucktown, Wicker Park and Lincoln Park appeal to young urban professionals who keep all of the swanky boutiques and trendy restaurants in business. New York City might be home to some of the greatest chefs in the country, but we have our fair share of gustatory geniuses, too. Stephanie Izard, who recently opened her new restaurant Girl and the Goat, won season 4 of Top Chef. . Alinea, Chef Grant Achatz’s restaurant in Lincoln Park, was ranked No. 7 on the World’s 50 Best Restaurants, also making it North America’s highest-rated restaurant. On occasion we steal the limelight from New York City, but it never lasts more than 15 minutes. We have the hugely popular music festival Lollapalooza so we’re clearly not lagging behind in the rock/hipster scene. And, of course, we can’t forget about the Taste of Chicago because there’s nothing more American than eating all day. But even President Barack Obama doesn’t have enough pull to transform Chicago from a Plain Jane to a buxom bombshell. Although President Obama traveled all the way to Copenhagen to persuade officials to name Chicago as the host city for the 2016 Summer Olympics, Rio de Janeiro still won the battle. First Lady Michelle Obama also tried to bring recognition to the Windy City by donning designs by Chicago-based fashion designer Maria Pinto, but it didn’t exactly work, since the much-publicized Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week is still happening in NYC. It’s disappointing that Chicago isn’t a highly coveted venue for fashion — it boasts the same designer shops and chic department stores as New York City, but never garners the same prestige.And when you’ve gone insane after shopping at those lavish stores all day and still haven’t made it to the second half of Michigan Avenue, there’s somewhere to cool off about five minutes away. For free.Even though it’s not necessary for a great city to have a beach, Chicago still does. Lake Michigan doesn’t exactly have the gnarliest of waves, but it’s still a sufficient pond for our boats to cruise in and our planes to soar over like in the annual Air & Water Show. The bottom line is, New York City is over-crowded, over-priced and, generally, over-hyped. Although I have to admit that Chicago’s sales tax is a whopping 9.75%, while New York City is a bit lower at 8.75%. Chicago and New York City are essentially the same type of city; Chicago is just the cleaner, smaller version. I don’t expect the tacky ‘I Heart NY’ shirts and Statue of Liberty headwear to disappear anytime soon, and I don’t even really want it to. I just want NYC to shift its big butt a little bit to the right so Chicago can have a seat on the throne, too. I think it’s safe to say that it’s long overdue. E-mail: pkansal@indiana.edu
(09/10/10 1:35am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Ashton Kutcher. Sex: Male. DOB: 2/7/1978. Occupation: Actor, producer, full-time Tweeter, inspiration for Iraqi show that horrifies celebrities by accusing them of terrorism? According to the New York Times, “Put Him in (Camp) Bucca” is Iraq’s new “Punk’d”-style reality television show. The idea is to place fake explosive devices in various celebrities’ vehicles, drive them to security checkpoints, and lead them to believe they are going to be shipped off to a high-profile prison. Predictably, my initial reaction to this story was that of shock and disgust. My jaw dropped and my eyes bulged, gasp clearly audible even in the midst of the bustling Indiana Memorial Union. But I found that after re-reading it, my stance shifted to the other end of the spectrum.Though many Iraqi viewers argue the show’s premise hits too close to home, I would argue that that is exactly what allows the show to raise the morale of its viewers. More often than not, good comedy comes from a place of truth, even if it is controversial. And although the situation in Iraq is far more troublesome than the issues that plague the United States, the concept of turning negativity into comedy is essentially the same. Stephen Colbert is a prime example of this; he somehow manages to transform reports about unemployment, the oil spill and the predicted apocalypse into the most uplifting half-hour of my day. The day-to-day life of Iraqi civilians appears to be so dismal there is almost nowhere to go but up. Tackling the fear that grips the nation head-on is an effective way to recapture a sense of a humor in a bleak situation. The crucial difference between “Put Him in Bucca” and what could be a seriously offensive TV program is the presence of celebrities. I would imagine seeing actors and singers who create work that allow the average Joes to escape their own lives — experiencing the same strong emotions that Iraqi civilians feel — is comforting. Actually seeing that the rich and famous share their same fear unites the people of Iraq in a way that transcends socio-economic status.Celebrities are often seen as an aspirational brand, the embodiment of a lavish, carefree lifestyle that is envied by many. That being said, I believe it is somewhat beneficial for Iraqis to see their role models experiencing the same trials and tribulations and having it conclude in laughter. The panic and subsequent relief and indignation of the celebrities, is likely to shed light on a particularly dark series of events. If nothing else, at least there is one reality TV show that’s somewhat anchored in real life (MTV and E!, I’m talking to you).E-mail: pkansal@indiana.edu
(06/02/10 11:54pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>A mobile of pots and pans hangs from the ceiling as the sun comes streaming in through a skylight. Multi-colored magnets arranged to say “Skills sessions 15 bux” stick to the door of a mini refrigerator. David Wade opened Inner Chef, a kitchen retail store, in August 2005. Wade co-owns the store with Stephen Chambers, his partner of 28 years. Chambers handles the financial aspect of Inner Chef but does not actually work in the store.“He’s the brainy one, and I’m the pretty one,” Wade said.Wade said he and Chambers feel it is important to tell the public that their store is owned by a gay couple because Bloomington is considered an accepting town. They also want to help bring more gay tourism to Bloomington, Wade said.Wade said he and Chambers chose to open Inner Chef in Bloomington because they have lived here for several years and observed that it is a “foodie city.”This past February, Inner Chef began offering “skills sessions,” which are often taught by Chase Potter, the store’s head chef. Wade and Potter first became acquainted 13 years ago while Wade was working in another kitchen retail store. Potter then moved away from Bloomington for a couple of years, and when he returned, he ran into Wade while job hunting. Neither Wade nor Potter has been formally trained in the culinary arts. Instead, they developed into chefs through hands-on cooking experience. Wade worked in catering, while Potter got his start waiting tables and doing some cooking in restaurant kitchens. Their independent route into the realm of cooking served as the inspiration behind the name “Inner Chef.” “Because I’m not a trained chef, I evolved, so I found my inner chef,” Wade said. Classes at Inner Chef are referred to as “skills sessions” to reflect their focus on a particular aspect of cooking, rather than an entire cuisine.“We’re trying to take a specific skill and build on it ... not so much to teach people, ‘Oh, this is what Mediterranean cooking is like,’ but to say, ‘These are the basics of dipping chocolates,’” Potter said.The purpose of taking a more narrow approach to cooking is to teach individuals to apply that skill to a variety of recipes, Potter said. The newest addition to Inner Chef’s skill sessions is a class on vegan cooking, which works with different types of milk and tofu.In addition to observing that veganism is a growing trend, Potter is a vegan himself. He said he hopes to educate others on what it means to be a vegan, not just on how to make vegan dishes. Thus far, Inner Chef has held only meat-free skills sessions, but Wade said he hopes to teach a class on quick and easy meals using meat.“In July, I’m going to do a class on some of (Chambers’s) favorites that I cook at home, which are truly 30- or 40-minute meals because I have to cook quickly when I get home,” Wade said.“Otherwise it cuts into cocktail time,” Potter said jokingly.In the fall, Wade plans to add a class called “Save Your Beer Money; Learn to Cook” directed toward college students who want to eat a healthy meal before getting out to the bars. Potter hopes to teach a session on “Dorm Gourmet,” which would focus on appetizers that can be made using a microwave.Wade said he enjoys watching Alton Brown and Guy Fieri on the Food Network and tries to model the classes after cooking programs. He also said that he and Potter had the concept of a studio in mind from the moment they began designing the kitchen area of Inner Chef.During a vegan dessert-making session, Potter, decked out in a bright green chef’s jacket and toe sneakers, cracked jokes with the class while giving tips on buying and substituting ingredients.“Quite frankly, Chase (Potter) and I are kind of animated and energetic enough that I think our personalities help the class a lot,” Wade said.
(04/25/10 11:13pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>When I read that The Food Network was launching a new channel called The Cooking Channel, I panicked a little. I didn’t want anything to replace my favorite guilty pleasure. But the more I thought about the idea of having a “little grittier, a little younger” channel, the more I started to see the possibilities. So I brainstormed some improvements they should implement.First, include actual cooking instruction. I’ve been watching The Food Network religiously for the past five years and printing off pages of recipes from the website, but I still don’t know how to properly chop an onion. Second, put greater emphasis on international cuisine. Italian food is delicious and all, but, frankly, I’m a little bored. Giada, Mario Batali, Michael Chiarello, and a handful of other chefs have long represented the food-loving peninsula, and it’s time they move over and make room for the other 194 countries in the world. The Food Network has attempted to become more diverse by adding shows like Down Home with the Neelys and Viva Daisy, but Asian, Indian and Middle Eastern cuisine have gained in popularity but still haven’t garnered a slot on the network.Third, show more cooking and less assembling. Let’s face it. Nobody really watches The Food Network to learn how to cook. We blissfully indulge ourselves in the almost pornographic act of watching people turn foodstuffs into a meal and then devour it (sensually, in Giada’s case). Then, we rush over to Williams-Sonoma where we buy cartloads of highly specific cookware that we won’t use. Fourth, get out of your fake kitchen. There’s a certain level of comfort and aesthetic appeal to having a chef cheerfully cooking in a sunny kitchen and acting as if it is their own and not one of the many sets in The Food Network’s New York studios. But it gives me no clue as to what these chefs are actually capable of and what they do behind closed doors at restaurants. For once, I want to observe these chefs in their natural habitat.Finally, realize that people eat with their eyes first, not their ears. For some reason, The Food Network thinks people want to see bubbly personalities that practically jump off the screen when, really, we just want to shut down our brains and ogle at all of the pretty food. Rachael Ray piling 25 ingredients into her arms isn’t that entertaining and Giada complimenting her own food is borderline obnoxious. That’s why when I’m in need of slipping into a visual food coma, I turn to the Barefoot Contessa and her minimal chit-chat.Don’t get me wrong. The Food Network holds a special place in my heart, and I’ll continue to be a loyal viewer. But if it has to expand its business, I’d like to see it done right.E-mail: pkansal@indiana.edu
(04/11/10 11:37pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’ve seen my fair share of irritating bumper stickers while cruising around Bloomington. “F@$& Toyota — I buy American” warrants an eye roll. But urging others to “Save the Ta-tas” is when a bumper sticker crosses from dim-witted vehicular ornamentation to thinly veiled ignorance.This isn’t an isolated incident, either. A few months ago, I logged on to Facebook only to see that some of my friends were attending a “boob cookie decorating” event.As a woman and a person with a relative battling breast cancer, I find it offensive that breast cancer organizations promote this politically incorrect terminology in what seems like a backward attempt to raise breast cancer awareness. During the past several months, the practice of substituting the words “ta-ta” for “breast” in terms of breast cancer has become increasingly popular. Inspirational slogans have gone from the National Breast Cancer Foundation’s “Help for Today...Hope for Tomorrow” to a 2009 public service announcement urging others to “save the boobs.”The PSA, performed by Canadian MTV host Aliya Jasmine Sovani, defended its message by claiming the video encourages young adults to become aware instead of “picking up pamphlets with a 65-year-old woman on the cover and probably tossing them out.”Although 5 percent of women diagnosed with breast cancer are under the age of 40, aging is the leading factor linked to breast cancer. Emphasizing the less frequently afflicted demographics gives individuals a skewed perspective of breast cancer and evinces a lack of sympathy for older women because their sagging breasts are apparently of no importance to sexually charged males.These campaigns only promote the average male’s self-fulfilling prophecy that he will be a morally bankrupt being who is not expected to care about any female affliction unless it’s packaged in wrapping paper decorated with breasts, butts or vaginas. Julia Fikse’s “Save the Ta-tas” foundation relies on that exact mindset as it capitalizes on the idea that “men have an ability to take it into a sexual place very fast.”And the strategy to gain the support of males who wouldn’t give a second thought to breast cancer unless it affected their sex lives shouldn’t be “Hey, if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.”Advocating the use of indecent terminology to discuss one of the leading forms of cancer in females is demoralizing for those afflicted and degrading for the entire female race. It instills a chauvinistic attitude that demonstrates disregard for this disease. If breast cancer activists are actually determined to spread the word about this illness, they must change the words they use to do so.E-mail: pkansal@indiana.edu
(04/04/10 9:31pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Before I started studying journalism, the extent of my knowledge about biased reporting was pretty limited. I knew the basics: Fox News Channel is heinously Republican, and MSNBC leans a little too far to the left. But, as I took more classes and read a wider variety of news sources, I started to realize just how surreptitious opinion-ridden journalism can be.Editorializing stretches beyond employing colorful adjectives to insert a point of view — it can be as subtle as saying “pro-choice and anti-choice” rather than saying “pro-choice and pro-life.” Pro-war opinions are often manifested through labeling as well by, for example, referring to the war as “The War on Terror” instead of “The War in Afghanistan.” It’s understandable for the government to issue statements referring to the war in a manner that builds support for its agenda, but the media should stick to describing it geographically, not politically, as it has usually been done in the past.Often times editorializing doesn’t involve language at all. A decision as simple as choosing not to interview someone can misrepresent the story by cutting out a side that might be essential to covering the issue. While it’s impossible to interview everyone related to the story, especially on expansive issues like health care or war, a good journalist identifies each perspective and chooses a qualified person to represent each one.Unfortunately, I’ve seen a number of stories, more so in broadcast journalism than in print, that don’t follow those guidelines whatsoever. The conclusion is another place where the writer must tread carefully to avoid editorializing. While reading an article on one of my favorite news Web sites a few months ago, I noticed that the story wrapped up with a quote from one of the two opposing sides of the issue. I felt slightly displeased when I read that because it seemed to indicate that the end quote summarized the issue and the sentiments of everyone involved, which was, in fact, not the case. In general, I believe the conclusion is at more risk for bias than the other sections of a story because of the fact that a conclusion is a note of finality. It can leave a sweet or bitter taste in the reader’s mouth, but the point is that it leaves a taste of some sort. It makes an impression on readers, hinting to them about what they should think and feel about the topic at hand. It inaccurately implies that the rest of the world already holds that opinion and that this reader needs to jump on board.Luckily, this is an opinion column in which I can end my piece with a completely editorialized conclusion without an ounce of guilt. With that said, I urge other consumers of news to read between the lines and not be fooled by the covert tactics of some of the lazy and/or biased journalists who comprise our media. E-mail: pkansal@indiana.edu
(03/28/10 10:12pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The bodies in Afghanistan are piling up, and many of them were never in uniform.Civilian casualties have plagued the nation since the start of foreign occupation, and the aftermath is becoming even more perceptible.On the one hand, it’s slightly unfair to judge the actions of frightened troops acting out of self-defense in the midst of chaos. However, it still doesn’t bring back all the people who didn’t want to be a part of the war but were sucked into it anyhow. It’s one thing to have a divided America on the war, but it becomes a different ball game when the civilians the troops are supposedly protecting are getting killed as well. This clearly contradicts the war’s objective and extinguishes Afghan support for U.S., NATO and even Afghan forces.In a war that has been dragging on with no apparent deadline in sight, the key to a conclusion might lie in building a more solid support system among the Afghanis. The U.S. government has already spent $1 billion in school-building projects in Afghanistan in hopes that education will deter young Afghanis from joining the insurgency. But will the promise of education really outweigh the desire for vengeance in the name of lost loved ones?In more concrete terms, it’s simply counterproductive to kill insurgents while killing civilians: The loved ones of murdered civilians will only feel alienated by troops and mollify their rage by running to the other side. It’s exactly what the insurgency wants — increased manpower and civilian support is a powerful weapon. Detainees from Bagram Air Base’s military prison did exactly that upon hearing about the wrongful deaths of their friends and family. Hostility toward foreign troops continues to escalate after an esteemed imam was killed two months ago. His community’s opinion of troops being stationed in Afghanistan has shifted, and it is likely that the outlook of his 150 students has also hardened.Although General Stanley McChrystal has taken measures to curb the violence against civilians and had some success (aerial attacks against civilians were cut by over a third in 2009), the number of civilian shootings has not diminished.Giving troops a better understanding of how to better distinguish between a threat and a confused civilian should be integrated into military training. Requiring all troops to have a basic understanding of Pashto, the language of the region, could also be beneficial as troops would rely less on interpreters who delay the exchange of information or might not be present in every situation. It would also reduce the dependency on communicating to civilians through hand gestures, which is clearly unreliable.In cases where mistakes are still made, the U.S. must convey a greater sense of remorse to their communities. Public apologies, greater coverage in the press, proper burial rites and monetary compensation to the families and friends are a few solutions. These steps are vital from both a moral and military standpoint. And while they might not do much to combat the current insurgency in Afghanistan, they can prevent more from rising.E-mail: pkansal@indiana.edu
(03/08/10 12:39am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin scored a few laughs this week and, for the first time, it wasn’t for being ridiculously uninformed.Palin tried her hand at stand-up comedy during The Tonight Show with Jay Leno last Tuesday and, surprisingly, didn’t fall flat. The level of confidence she exuded is rarely seen in a newcomer, especially in someone who is constantly berated by the media. Although I’m reluctant to admit it, I can see why many Americans are enamored with Palin. She’s your typical soccer-mom-meets-sexy-librarian, except that her accessory of choice is a rifle. And she probably decorates her home with hunting trophies. She’s a mélange of sugar and spice and she makes you feel like she’s your teammate, not your coach.The obsession with Palin is not unlike the obsession many American youth seem to have with President Obama. After enduring decades of stuffy, golf club-wielding geriatrics dominating Capitol Hill, it’s refreshing to see someone try to identify with young adults who are largely ignored and underestimated by politicians. It’s clear that Palin does possess a certain level of charisma and relatability, but those two qualities alone aren’t sufficient to hold a high-profile position in the national government. It seems like Palin has finally wrapped her head around that concept.Palin recently joined Fox News as a contributor. While this further lowers the network’s credibility, it’s far less harmful to have Palin spouting her theories on what’s wrong with America than being a part of any sort of lawmaking or regulating body.The same applies to the publishing industry. If Paris Hilton and Miley Cyrus can get books published, Palin’s “Going Rogue” isn’t mucking up the already squalid dignity of it that much more. Palin is in talks to release another book (to say write would be misleading — Palin employs the assistance of ghostwriter Lynn Vincent), and I think that’s a sensible idea. With winter, spring and summer breaks, people are always in need of a good “beach read.”Having recently pitched a television show about life in Alaska, Palin is scrambling to keep up with the Kardashians by worming her way into the genre of reality television. She was also seen loading up on free swag at a pre-Oscars gifting suite last week.If she’s still planning on running for president in 2012, I think it’s safe to say she just shot herself in the foot.Although every announcement of a Palin venture prompts a scoff, snort or swear word from me, Palin has an undeniable base of support and it’s a relief to see that she’s applying her magnetism to the entertainment industry, not government. It’s far better that she satiates her thirst for fame through inconsequential projects than through legislation. Bravo, Sarah Palin, on (hopefully) accepting that politics isn’t your forte. Now stay put. E-mail: pkansal@indiana.edu
(02/28/10 10:20pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>You can take an animal out of the wild, but you can’t take the wild out of an animal.Tillikum, a killer whale, was implicated in the death of SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau last Wednesday after he pulled her into his tank where she drowned.Tillikum was blamed for the death of a trainer in 1991 and a man in 1999 as well. It should also be noted that all of the whales participating in SeaWorld’s show last Wednesday were not cooperating with the trainers, which shows that Brancheau’s death was not a freak accident, but rather a manifestation of the larger issue at hand: the keeping of animals, especially large, predatory animals, in captivity.Other SeaWorld trainers are attempting to gloss over the underlying problem by chalking Brancheau’s death up to her “swinging ponytail.” It’s possible that Brancheau’s hairstyle was responsible for triggering a menacing sense of playfulness in Tillikum, but that only solidifies the conviction that animals should be free to reside in their natural habitats.Animals don’t thrive in artificial habitats — they simply survive. Animals clearly cannot have careers, so their ability to achieve comes from hunting and braving the expansive great outdoors, neither of which is possible for a creature residing in a zoo or aquarium.An additional example of nonsensical zoo practices is the practice of the Brookfield Zoo near Chicago, which has polar bears fumble around with a plastic bucket. This hardly satisfies feral instincts, and the average zoo’s polar-bear den is one-millionth the size of its natural habitat.In the case of large animals like killer whales and bears, it’s just not feasible to study the most significant aspects of their lifestyle. Mating is largely controlled by park officials (Tillikum’s sperm is extracted for an artificial insemination program) and hunting is non-existent (Tillikum is fed 300 pounds of fish per day).Park employees and visitors should think twice before they proclaim their love for animals because the widespread culture of visiting zoos and aquariums isn’t doing the animals any favors. It’s highly unlikely that animals enjoy gawking spectators for whom they are forced to perform asinine tricks.In addition to their monotonous duties, the isolation and enclosed spaces these animals are forced to endure has a palpable effect on their mental health. A 2003 Oxford study found that animals, large ones in particular, are distressed by their confinement, and several marine experts have described the mental state of whales in aquariums as “depressed”.Seeing as how whales possess spindle neurons, the brain cells found in primates that play a role in processing emotions and social interactions, it’s no wonder that these whales aren’t content with flipping on command.A more humane way to learn about animals is through documentaries like Planet Earth, which gives viewers an up-close and personal look at the daily life of various animals in high-definition footage. For a more hands-on approach, whale watching is an inexpensive way to observe whales interacting within their natural habitat.Viewing documentaries and going whale watching might not be as exciting as a day at the zoo, but people can accurately observe animals while they live largely undisturbed. Everybody wins. E-mail: pkansal@indiana.edu
(02/22/10 12:28am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>A recent study conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 18- to 29-year-olds in America tend to be far less religious than their parents and grandparents were at those ages. Before you dismiss the youth of America as God-less cretins, it is important to note that the study found most young adults still abide by the same values and practices as older generations. Forty-five percent of those surveyed declared they pray daily and share similar views on miracles, heaven and hell, and the afterlife as older Americans.Breaking away from a religious doctrine encourages independent thinking and a greater sense of personal choice. By not following one particular dogma, people are free to create their own lifestyle and discover what they think is the ultimate truth, rather than having it dictated to them.While the concept of God serves as a moral compass for society, religion itself can often act as the opposite. Numerous wars throughout history were fought in the name of religion; the Crusades, French Wars of Religion and modern-day terrorism being among them. Centuries of anti-Semitism continue, and the animosity between Muslims and Hindus has no end in sight. The purpose of religion is to provide hope and stability for society, yet it is used as a means of judgment in almost every aspect of life.Discrimination against homosexuals is rampant, and religion is often cited as a reason for being opposed to same-sex marriage.Religion acts as a barrier in heterosexual marriage as well. For example, in some parts of India it is sacrilegious to marry someone who is not from the exact same religious sect and town as oneself.Religion takes hold of our daily lives and worms its way into institutions, such as government, in which it is said to have no place. It is yet another method of sullying the dirty game of politics by diverting attention from the issues and directing it toward superficial characteristics.Would Bobby Jindal be the governor of Louisiana if he had not converted from Hinduism to Christianity when he was in high school? Would Barack Obama be president today if he were Muslim?Probably not. This is not to say all religions are terrible and should be abolished. Rather, the way they are interpreted and practiced by people is the cause of bloodshed and discrimination.Religion could be a terrific thing for the world if people did not have a penchant for turning it into the equivalent of the Red Sox-Yankees rivalry. Unfortunately, people have had the tendency to divide themselves into fanatical teams on any and every subject since the beginning of time, and that is not likely to change.The decline of organized religion should not be viewed as the devastation of humanity but rather as one step closer to achieving unification of mankind. If harmony on earth can be accomplished without the label of religion, then the human race will have come a long way. E-mail: pkansal@indiana.edu